Additional Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Oliver, W. (2009). Policing for homeland security. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20 (3), 253-260.
1. How did the passage of the Patriot Act and the creation of the Office of Homeland Security affect the role of the police?
2. In what ways did think tanks and scholars begin attempting to convey the specific role of the police in homeland security?
3. How has Intelligence Led Policing (ILP) Affected the role of police in homeland security?
1. In what ways can a state court decision be considered both liberal and conservative?
2. How did the authors of this study focus their analysis and framework?
3. What were the findings of this study?
1. What were the findings of the Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies in 2007 pertaining to gun ownership?
2. Describe the current situation pertaining to guns and gun violence in the United States.
3. What is meant by the 'primary' and 'secondary' gun market?
1. What has research indicated with respect to increased safety during police vehicular pursuit and changes in policy?
2. What has research shown with regard to foot pursuits that result in a shooting?
3. What are some limitations of research conducted on foot pursuit by police officers?
1. What 3 factors do people evaluate when making the decision to evacuate during a disaster?
2. In what way do social networks influence the decision to evacuate?
3. According to the article, what is the role of police during an evacuation?
1. Describe the uses and controversies of conducted energy devices.
2. What has research shown regarding officer injury and the use of CEDs?
3. What did research from the Police Executive Research Forum indicate with respect to officer injury and the use of CEDs?
1. How did the researchers in this article envision the nature of the police task?
2. What did Mike Hough find regarding stop and frisks performed by police?
3. How are the police indirect mechanisms of democracy?
1. What did Farnworth and colleagues (1998) find in their survey of college students and punitive attitudes toward criminal justice issues?
2. What has research indicated with regard to public attitudes about marijuana?
3. What did the authors find with regard to the attitudes of college student pertaining to marijuana?
1. In what ways is this study important according to the researchers?
2. What has research shown pertaining to the use of drugs in the United States?
3. According to research how does drug use impact emergency room visits?
1. What has research indicated about Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)?
2. Describe the uses of case management in Medicaid managed-care programs.
3. How were women for the study selected?
1. What has research shown with respect to rates of juvenile violence?
2. What has previous research shown with regard to the effects of transfer on juvenile recidivism?
3. What has previous research indicated with respect to the severity of punishment and juvenile transfer and recidivism?
1. Describe the purpose of teen courts.
2. Describe the proceedings of a juvenile court.
3. Describe the history of juvenile courts in the United States.
1. What has research indicated with respect to increased safety during police vehicular pursuit and changes in policy?
A: Research by Alpert, Kenney, Dunham, and Smith (2000) showed that changes in police pursuit policies had a notable impact on the incidence of motor vehicle pursuits and thereby the number of pursuits involving accidents and injuries. Specifically, the Metro-Dade (FL) Police Department (now Miami-Dade Police Department) experienced an 82% decrease in its number of pursuits when it changed its pursuit policy from one that allowed officers to use their judgment on when to pursue to a policy that restricted officers to pursue only those suspects wanted for a vio-lent crime. Conversely, when the Omaha (NE) Police Department changed to a more permissive policy that allowed officers to pursue for a wider variety of offenses than allowed in its previous policy, the department experienced a 600% increase in motor vehicle pursuits. This research, combined with similar findings from other studies (Charles, Falcone, & Wells, 1992; Crew, 1992; Crew & Hart, 1999; Nugent, 1990; Oechsli, 1992), changed the dialogue on the appropriateness of police vehicle pursuits (Lum & Fachner, 2008). Agency pursuit policies were no longer only considering whether there was a violation of the law that warranted a pursuit but also the degree to which a violation justified a pursuit relative to the associated risks. These changes are reflected in the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Vehicular Pursuit Model Policy, where it is articulated that decisions to initiate a pursuit “must be based on the pursuing officer’s conclusion that the immediate danger to the officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the suspect remain at large” (IACP, 1996, p. 2).
Answer Location: p. 180
2. What has research shown with regard to foot pursuits that result in a shooting?
A: Concern over the balance between the need to apprehend and the potential for harm emerged recently in relation to police foot pursuits. Of particular concern are foot pursuits that end in shootings. An analysis conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Simpson, 2007) found that 4 (12%) of 33 incidents in which individuals were shot and killed by DeKalb County deputies between 2001 and 2006 involved foot pursuits. Reviews conducted by the Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) found that 22% to 27% of officer-involved shooting incidents involved foot pursuits (Bobb, 2003, 2005), while an internal review by the Philadelphia Police Department found that 48% of officer-involved shootings between 1998 and 2003 involved foot pursuits (Graham, 2009). These results, along with other findings, led the LASD Special Counsel to recommend the agency implement a restrictive foot pursuit policy.
Answer Location: p. 180
3. What are some limitations of research conducted on foot pursuit by police officers?
A: It is important to recognize, however, that calls to restrict or limit foot pur-suits have been based on analyses that inflate the risks associated with these events. Each of the above analyses sampled first on fatalities or officer-involved shootings and then examined how many involved foot pursuits, subsequently portraying foot pursuits as high-risk events. An alternative—and arguably more appropriate strategy for assessing risk—is to first sample on foot pursuits and then examine how many involve shootings and fatalities. This is commonly referred to as the base-rate problem (Garner & Clemmer, 1986; Kaminski & Sorensen, 1995; Lichtenberg & Smith, 2001). Using this approach, analyses of foot pursuits in two law enforcement agencies found that 1.3% to 3.3% involved shootings (Kaminski, 2006, 2010).
Another limitation of the studies that sampled first on shootings is that they did not consider less serious but more frequent outcomes, such as the use of less-lethal force and nonfatal injuries. Kaminski et al.’s (2004) arrest-based analysis of use-of-force incidents in a single agency found that pursuits of any type (foot, motor vehicle, or a combination thereof) increased the odds of officer use of force by 345%. Other research found that 12% to 14% of incidents in which officers were injured involved foot pursuits (injuries were largely accidental; Brandl, 1996; Brandl & Stroshine, 2003). In the Richland (SC) County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD), deputies engaging in foot pursuits reported that they were intentionally injured in 10% and accidentally injured in 14% of incidents over a 6-month period (Kaminski, 2006, 2007). Finally, a descriptive analysis of nearly 300 foot pursuits in the LASD found that one or more deputies sustained injuries in 17% of the incidents and that one or more suspects were injured in 60% (Kaminski, 2010). Even though pursuit-related suspect and officer injuries tend to be relatively minor, the association of pursuits with the increase in use of force and work time lost due to injuries is nevertheless of concern (Kaminski, 2006, 2007, 2010).
Answer Location: p. 180
1. What 3 factors do people evaluate when making the decision to evacuate during a disaster?
A: People evaluate risks by examining three factors related to the threat: proximity, certainty, and severity (Perry, 1979). Studies examining evacuations from hurricanes have found that high risk areas experienced higher evacuation rates than low risk areas (Dow & Cutter, 1998; Peacock, Morrow, & Gladwin, 1997). These high risk areas were closest to the projected path of the hurricane, more certain to experience damage, and more likely to suffer severe damage. Thus citizens in these high risk areas probably perceived a greater personal risk and evacuated. Notably, the process of risk evaluation de-emphasizes the type of disaster and instead highlights the perceptions of risk associated with the disaster.
Factors about disaster warnings can also affect citizens’ perceptions of risk and, in turn, their evacuation decisions. Research finds that the most effective warnings are issued frequently, from a credible and familiar source, contain specific information about the disaster (i.e., location of risk, time to impact, nature of the hazard), and advise citizens to take specific protective action (Drabek, 1999; Sorenson, 2000). Citizens who receive clear and consistent warnings about the proximity, certainty, and severity of the disaster are more likely to accurately perceive the disaster risks and make appropriate evacuation decisions. This point is highlighted in research showing that people chose not to evacuate primarily because they did not believe the disaster posed any danger to them (Perry, 1985). Therefore, although the disaster type is important for estimating the physical impact, citizens’ perceptions of the disaster’s risk are more important for evaluating the social impact and subsequent decision making, though the physical and social impacts of an event are likely correlated.
Answer Location: p. 140
2. In what way do social networks influence the decision to evacuate?
A: Social networks and social norms are two key aspects of social influence, a mechanism that strongly shapes both individuals’ behaviors and group behaviors (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003; Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskeviscius, 2008). Social networks are composed of interconnected individuals tied to each other through some type of inter-dependence, such as friendship, finances, or information exchanges. Norms refer to explicit or implicit rules of behavior in social interactions. Social influence becomes increasingly important when warnings about a stressful event are unclear or uninformative (Nilsson & Johansson, 2009). Similarly, research has long noted the importance of social influences (i.e., family and friends) when disasters strike (Lindell, Lu, & Prater, 2005; Quarantelli, 1957). Citizens seek information from the media about the disaster but, when faced with the decision to evacuate, citizens frequently rely on their social networks to gather additional information about the disaster, confirm their perceived risks or authorities’ warnings about the risks, and solicit others’ opinions about whether or not to evacuate (Drabek, 2000; Proulx, 1999).
Answer Location: p. 141
3. According to the article, what is the role of police during an evacuation?
A: Disasters present the police with unstable, dangerous circumstances that often frighten and threaten large numbers of citizens. Yet the emergence of a disaster event does not change the societal role of the police—the government and citizens still expect the police to maintain order and peace. Besides fulfilling this legislative mandate, the police must also protect life and property, conduct search and rescue operations, control traffic and crowds, and warn and evacuate citizens (Kennedy, Brooks, & Roncek, 1969).
The police are generally the first organization to respond to a disaster (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1977). Typically, their response involves normal police activity, such as aiding citizens, relaying information to communications centers, and abating the physical effects of the disaster. In addition, the police possess the legal authority, geographic information, and the best immediate equipment to enter disaster sites to conduct reconnaissance or search and rescue operations.
The police are also needed to assist in evacuations from disasters. Among government organizations, the police are best equipped to immediately facilitate the evacuation process. For instance, police officers can go door-to-door to announce and further publicize evacuation orders, help plan exit routes, facilitate departing foot or vehicle traffic, and inspect neighborhoods and houses to assess whether citizens have complied with evacuation orders. When evacuees return, the police may perform
several duties, including assisting in the inspection of dwellings for damage, distributing supplies, and alerting citizens of disaster-related dangers (e.g., swimming in flood waters, downed wires, home repair scams, etc.).
Answer Location: p. 143
1. Describe the uses and controversies of conducted energy devices.
A: In making arrests and dealing with citizens who fight and resist the police, officers are permitted to apply a variety of physical and weapon-based tactics. One such weapon is a conducted energy device (CED). While CEDs have been in operation across American police agencies since the late 1970s, their popularity has increased dramatically (Vilke & Chan, 2007). At the same time, CEDs have been at the center of public controversy, driven largely by concerns over citizen safety (White & Ready, 2009). On the other hand, police agencies generally perceive CEDs as a safe alternative to other means of control in terms of reducing police injuries, as officers can use them at greater distances than hands-on tactics, prevent longer physical struggles, and do not have to worry about potential contamination to themselves (like that of chemical sprays; Adang & Mensink, 2004). While individual police agency reports illustrating reductions in officer injuries following the adoption of CEDs (pre- and post-analyses) have been heavily criticized for their weak research designs (Adams & Jennison, 2007), recent social science research has confirmed the benefits of CEDs, suggesting that aggregate levels of officer injuries are reduced in post-adoption time periods (Lin & Jones, 2010; MacDonald, Kaminski, & Smith, 2009; Taylor & Woods, 2010). Unfortunately, consistent empirical evidence from multivariate examinations has yet to be provided that clearly demonstrates that CEDs decrease the likelihood of police injuries although if one picked up a national police newsletter (either practitioner or funding based) one would read nearly unequivocally that CEDs reduce injuries to police compared to all other less lethal options.
Despite their widespread adoption and popularity, CEDs have also been engulfed in public controversy that has polarized opinion between the potential for injuries/deaths to citizens (White & Ready, 2009) versus the enhanced safety for police officers (Vilke & Chan, 2007; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005). Efforts to empirically inform both sides of the debate have suffered from some well-documented shortcomings (Adams & Jennison, 2007; Kaminski, 2009; White & Ready, 2010). Unfortunately, we also find that examinations of CEDs and injuries often fail to devote the detail and attention needed to tease out the independent effects on either side, instead choosing to provide analyses of officers along with suspects.
Answer Location: 116
2. What has research shown regarding officer injury and the use of CEDs?
A: MacDonald et al. (2009), using data collected from the Orlando Police Department (OPD) and the Austin Police Department (APD), examined the average monthly incidence of officer injuries during pre- and post-CED adoption. Based on a time-series analysis, the researchers found, over a 108-month period in Orlando and a 60-month period in Austin, that officer injury averages decreased by 62% (in OPD) and 25% (in APD) following CED implementation.
Lin and Jones (2010), relying on use of force incidents over a 5-year period from the Washington State Patrol (WSP), also examined changes in officer injuries following the implementation of electronic control devices (ECDs; a synonym for CEDs). Their approach compared the number of worker compensation claims between sworn (i.e., commissioned WSP officers) and nonsworn (i.e., noncommissioned employees) personnel following ECD adoption. Based on the findings that nonsworn personnel rates of injuries remained constant, while sworn personnel claims for all injuries reduced following ECD adoption, the researchers reported that ECDs reduced officer workplace injuries.
In a similar vein, Taylor and Woods (2010) compared seven police agencies with CEDs to six that did not use them to examine the impact of CED implementation on officer injuries. Using logistic regression, the researchers’ analytic models contained an interaction term to measure whether the agency deployed a CED multiplied by the time period (i.e., before or after CEDs were adopted). The authors found that agencies that were issued CEDs had fewer officer injuries (and injuries that needed medical attention) in the post-period than agencies that did not carry CEDs.
Answer Location: p. 118
3. What did research from the Police Executive Research Forum indicate with respect to officer injury and the use of CEDs?
A: The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF; 2009) conducted a series of multivariate analyses designed to assess the relationship between CEDs and officer injuries based on a 13-agency data set (7 agencies with and 6 without CEDs).2 In their initial analysis of the seven departments that were issued CEDs, five categories of force (i.e., CED only, baton only, chemical spray only, hands-on only, and multiple weapons or weapons other than CED, baton, and chemical spray) were examined with only three suspect-based controls (i.e., race, gender, and age). In their force comparisons, the researchers found the greatest impact on reducing the odds of officer injury for no weapons (i.e., hands-on tactics) followed by CEDs and chemical sprays. Further analyses that combined agencies with and without CEDs (i.e., 10 total) resulted in a few additional statistical controls (i.e., suspect physical aggression and weapon dummy variables), but resulted in the loss of comparing different categories of force. These latter analyses revealed, like Taylor and Woods (2010), that agencies with CEDs had a reduced probability of officers being injured and needing medical attention than those that did not issue CEDs.
Answer Location: p. 119
1. How did the researchers in this article envision the nature of the police task?
A: This is directly addressed in articles by Andrew Millie and Robert Reiner. As Reiner reminds us in his article, there is now a significant body of empirical work that demonstrates, contrary to common sense assumptions of the media and political commentators, that the police role is much more complex than seeking merely to control crime. Indeed, according to Waddington (1993: 5), ‘it is a ‘cliché of police research that only a small proportion of public demands on the police are directly and unambiguously concerned with crime’. In direct contrast to the notion of the police officer as crime fighter, commentators have characterized the police role as ‘peace officer’ (Banton, 1964), ‘secret social service’ (Punch, 1979) and ‘philosopher, guide and friend’ (Cumming et al., 1965).
Empirical evidence has borne this out over time. In his article Reiner draws attention to the schism between political (and public) understandings of the police role that tend to focus on crime control, and empirical examinations which reveal their wider remit. He argues that whilst the raison d’etre of the New Police was the prevention of crime, demands for police services have not been mainly crime-related. For Reiner, ‘seeing crime as the essence of the police mission is to pursue a quixotic impossible dream’. Promoting crime control as the primary task of the police puts at risk their wider order-maintenance role, and poses risks to the police themselves as there are limitations in the potential for reducing crime through policing.
In Millie’s article policing is conceptualized as being on a spectrum from ‘wide’ to ‘narrow’. Millie considers numerical and functional expansion of the state police in the UK and elsewhere, which was witnessed from the 1970s onward in the context of the criminalization or ‘policification’ of a wide range of aspects of social policy with police officers taking on more of the roles traditionally provided by other social or welfare agencies (Crawford, 1997; Kemshall and Maguire, 2001). He argues that, as a result, policing has become too wide and he considers what functions should be at the heart of the police service and what potentially could be provided by others. In light of contraction and constraint, Millie asks if it is time to rethink the core role of the police service. He acknowledges that while the policing task is clearly best categorized as a combination of crime control, social service and order maintenance functions, if the net is cast too widely the police role is stretched to encompass activities that may be better provided by other statutory or non-statutory bodies. Though not to deny that there may be difficulties with other agencies stepping in, such reassessment of the core police role could provide an opportunity to decriminalize social policy and to govern through crime (see Simon, 2007) a little less.
Answer Location: p. 134
2. What did Mike Hough find regarding stop and frisks performed by police?
A: Mike Hough, in his article, draws attention not only to the issue of what the police do but how they do it. His focus is the ever controversial topic of stop and search. The article considers the factors that have drawn police officers towards adversarial styles of polic-ing. Drawing on empirical data he argues that the inherent risk of adversarial styles is that they may create a malign dynamic between the police and the public. An alternative, Hough suggests, can be found within procedural justice theories (e.g. Hough et al., 2010; Tyler, 2007) which stress that compliance and co-operation with the law are best achieved by treating citizens in ways that are recognized to be fair, respectful and legal. Such approaches, the article argues, privilege professional standards and the consolidation of institutional legitimacy over short-term goals of crime control. A sub-theme of Hough’s argument is that procedural justice may have much to gain in times of austerity not least because changing policing style does not necessarily incur significant costs.
Answer Location: p. 135
3. How are the police indirect mechanisms of democracy?
A: The election of Police and Crime Commissioners was part of the Conservative Party 2010 election manifesto (Conservative Party, 2010) and the Coalition agreement (HM Government, 2010). As noted, the first cohort was elected following an historic low election turnout in November 2012. For the Conservative Party – and the Coalition – the hope was that these individuals would improve local accountability, transparency and render the service more responsive to local concerns: ‘Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) will reinvigorate those democratic principles, ensuring that the public have an elected representative with a duty to the citizen and the welfare of the communities they represent’ (Home Office, 2011: 1).
As Bridges (2011) suggests, a principle concern has been that a populist agenda, focused on unpopular or marginalized communities, dominates. Millie and Bullock (2012) draw particular attention to young people who are disproportionately the targets of police attention and, by definition, excluded from democratic election processes. In addition, commentators have noted how elections do not, in and of themselves, equate to democracy. Perhaps the greatest risk, according to Sampson (2012: 11), is that the introduction of elections – ‘a tenuous and token populism ostensibly linking policing to the policed’ – creates the illusion of democratic accountability.
Answer Location: p. 137
1. What did Farnworth and colleagues (1998) find in their survey of college students and punitive attitudes toward criminal justice issues?
A: Farnworth and colleagues (1998) surveyed 638 students from four universities. The authors found that seniors were less likely than freshman to have a punitive view of criminal justice issues. This change in vantage point was attributed to the liberalizing effect of college. The authors, however, did not find a liberalizing effect on criminal justice major’s attitudes toward punishment. Other studies have found similar results. For instance, Mackey & Courtright (2000) surveyed five universities (N = 633) using a nonproability sample to determine punitiveness among college majors. They found that “both criminal justice majors and other majors displayed less punitive attitudes with increased years of education” (p. 436). Nevertheless, criminal justice majors held higher levels of punitiveness than other majors. It has been noted, however, that cross-sectional designs cannot “prove” a change in attitude (Eskridge, 1999).
Answer Location: 5
2. What has research indicated with regard to public attitudes about marijuana?
A: The most noted changes on drug perceptions are attitudes toward marijuana. Approximately 95 million individuals within the United States have reported using marijuana at least once in their lifetimes. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among high school and college students. Of the high school seniors in 2008, almost 43% reported using marijuana (Monitoring the Future, 2009). Between 26% and 44% of college students have reported using marijuana (Presley, Meilman, & Lyeria, 1993; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996). Although marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which considers the drug as being highly addictive and having no legitimate medical usage, the acceptance of marijuana in mainstream society has continued to increase regardless of specific crime control polices. In 2007, the Gallup Poll found that approximately 55% of those surveyed agreed possession of small amounts of marijuana should not be considered a criminal offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005, 2009). Although polling information consistently reports an opposition to the legalization of marijuana, the increasing acceptance has resulted in the decriminalization of the drug in almost one third of the United States, while many cities have enacted ordinances making the possession of marijuana a fine-only offense or in some instances requiring drug counseling, education, or treatment as the normative, criminal consequence. When discussing the use of medical marijuana, acceptance of these policies has been well documented in the literature. Support for doctor-prescribed medical marijuana has consistently exhibited a high level of acceptance (PEW, 2001). This acceptance has led 14 states to authorize legislation making it legal to hold a prescription for marijuana. State and local governments are increasingly making attempts to curtail the punitive policies targeting this widely used drug. Although the federal government has attempted to maintain its castigatory stance toward marijuana as can be seen in the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to ban the use of marijuana even if a state allows it, recent decisions by the Obama administration have held that the government “will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws” (Barrett, 2009). Current federal law still prohibits the use of marijuana; however, it appears as if public support for the decriminalization of marijuana and the use of the drug for medical purposes may be affecting governmental policies toward the criminalization.
Answer Location: p. 7
3. What did the authors find with regard to the attitudes of college student pertaining to marijuana?
A: There were some theoretically interesting findings at the bivariate level (as illustrated in Table 3). Gender was found to be correlated with attitudes toward marijuana use (r = .169**), which suggested that females were less tolerant of marijuana use as compared to males; however, there was no correlation between gender and the other dependent variables, attitudes toward drug policy, or attitudes toward drug testing. Class rank was found to be correlated with attitudes toward marijuana (r = −.169**) and attitudes toward drug policy (r = −.181**). This finding indicated that upperclass-men were more tolerant of marijuana and general drug policy issues. However, college major was only correlated with attitudes toward marijuana use and policy (r = −.191**). Criminal justice/legal studies majors revealed less punitive attitudes toward marijuana use and policy as compared to noncriminal justice–related majors. Illegal use of prescription drugs was also correlated with more tolerable attitudes toward marijuana use and policies (r = −.489**). Illegal drug use was found to have a significant relationship with the remaining attitudinal indexes: general drug policies (r = −.194**) and attitudes toward drug testing (r = −.429**). Not surprisingly, all of the attitudinal variables were correlated with one another.
Regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between the independent variables and attitudes toward the current drug policy. Gender, class rank, major, illegal prescription drug use, illegal drug use, and attitudes toward drug treatment were regressed on the dependent variables: marijuana attitudes and policy (MA), drug policy attitudes in general (DPA), and drug testing attitudes (DTA).5 Each of the models was found to be significant (see Table 4). Although previous research (Farnworth et al., 1998) determined that attitudes toward the war on drugs did not differ in regard to major, our analysis found that this assumption is not so clear cut. Interestingly, college major was a significant predictor of attitudes toward marijuana use and policy; however, there was not a statistically significant difference between majors and nonmajors in relation to attitudes toward drug policy and attitudes toward drug testing. For this analysis, criminal justice/legal studies’ majors were significantly likely to have more tolerant MA attitudes (b = −.136*). The variable that measured attitudes toward drug treatment programs (b = −.131*) was found to be a statistically significant predictor in only one model (DTA). Prior illegal drug use remained a statistically significant predictor of more tolerant attitudes for each index—MA (b = −.304**), DPA (b = −.002*), and DTA (b = −230**).
Answer Location: p. 11
1. In what ways is this study important according to the researchers?
A: The pursuit of the current study is important for several reasons. First, studies of illicit drug use should attempt to examine a wide range of drug use and not limit inquires to drugs which have historically received attention in prior work (e.g., crack and heroin). The public health concerns associated with the use, manufacturing, and distribution of methamphetamine have brought much attention to the individual risk factors of methamphetamine use as well as communities experiencing increased rates of methamphetamine use. As race is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of drug use, especially in urban areas, a focus on the relationship between race/ethnicity, disadvantage, and various illicit drugs is warranted as it provides insight on the inter-section between individual and macro-level risk factors of illicit drug use. Furthermore, limited resources for treatment and interdiction efforts by law enforcement have meant government officials must identify and target specific areas for intervention efforts. Knowing the relationship between structural disadvantage and drug use can be particularly useful in planning and service delivery. Hence, we conclude it is important to conduct an empirical study on whether race and structural disadvantage are salient features of specific drug use. In the following, we provide a review of drug use by various racial/ethnic groups and draw on literature that presents structural disadvantage as a risk factor of drug use. We analyze the relationship between individual factors, structural disadvantage, and various forms of drug use in an effort to produce a comprehensive examination of illicit drug use by a criminally involved population.
Answer Location: p. 20
2. What has research shown pertaining to the use of drugs in the United States?
A: The study of illicit drug use continues to be one of the most examined phenomena given the devastating impact it can have on the social fabric of communities (Johnston et al., 2007; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2008). Epidemiological and criminal justice research has established that to address crime-related problems and health costs associated with illicit drug use, far more insight is needed on the extent of the drug problem, particularly the rates of use for specific drugs. Although there are a number of data sources that attempt to measure illicit drug use at the national level, the National Survey on Substance Abuse and Health provides the most robust methodology for national estimates of drug use (SAMHSA, 2008). According to the latest survey, approximately 8% of the population aged 12 or older reported current (past month) illicit drug use. In 2007, about 5.8% of the population reported current marijuana use, 0.8% reported being current cocaine users, 0.2% were methamphetamine users, and 0.1% reported being current heroin users (SAMHSA, 2008). The most recent findings from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) project, a long-term study that focuses on adolescents in America, show similar findings in that rates of marijuana use are highest and relatively lower for other illicit drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine; Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2007). Although these numbers indicate, with the exception of marijuana use, that a fairly small proportion of the U.S. population engage in regular illicit drug use, the public health arena and criminal justice system are significantly impacted by individuals who engage in drug use.
Answer Location: p. 20
3. According to research how does drug use impact emergency room visits?
A: The latest figures from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) and the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) illustrate the extent to which the drug treatment and emergency room sectors are affected by drug use. The Treatment Episode Data Set, compiled from drug treatment facilities across the United States, show that in 2007, 18.6% of treatment admissions were for opiate use, 15.8% were for marijuana or hashish use, 12.9% for cocaine use, and 7.8% for methamphetamine use. From 1997 to 2007, the rates of treatment admissions for opiate, marijuana, and cocaine use have remained fairly constant or decreased slightly, although treatment admissions for methamphetamine use have more than doubled (from 3.3% in 1997 to 7.5% in 2007; SAMHSA, 2009). The Drug Abuse Warning Network estimated that in 2006 about 958,164 emergency department (ED) visits involved an illicit drug. Of those visits, about 57.2% involved cocaine, 30.3% involved marijuana, 19.8% involved heroin, and 11.2% involved stimulants (including amphetamines and methamphetamine; SAMHSA, 2008). The estimates of emergency department visits remained stable for all major drugs from 2004 to 2006 (the only data available since DAWN was redesigned in 2003). These data not only shed light on the capacity needed by the behavioral health industry to address drug use but also highlight the need to address possible risk factors associated with specific illicit drug use.
Answer Location: p. 21
1. What has research indicated about Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)?
A: Interventions offering criminal justice supervision in an intermediate range have included the Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC) and intensive supervision probation/parole (ISP) models (Pearson, 1988; Petersilia & Turner, 1990a). TASC programs combine case management and treatment in an effort to identify drug-involved offenders and link them with treatment (Marlowe, Elwork, Festinger, & McLellan, 2003). Early findings were promising (Hubbard et al., 1989), whereas a later multisite evaluation showed mixed results (Anglin, Longshore, & Turner, 1999). Marlowe et al. (2003) attributed the weak results of TASC interventions to the transfer of jurisdiction from the courts to probation. In ISP models, criminal justice super-vision is intensified under probation jurisdiction. The ISP approach includes smaller caseloads for the supervising officer, frequent face-to-face contact with the probationer, and requirements for urinalysis testing, counseling, and work participation (Turner, Petersilia, & Deschenes, 1992). In a randomized trial, ISP participants received more drug counseling and had higher employment than did usual supervision control participants. Although the groups did not differ on new criminal arrests at 1-year follow-up, the ISP group had more technical violations and associated incarceration and costs. The investigators recommended that ISP programs include substance abuse treatment (Turner et al., 1992). Although we did not undertake a systematic review of the literature, the research reviewed here does not specifically address the relationship of TASC to women offenders (Anglin et al., 1999; Hubbard et al., 1989; Marlowe et al., 2003) or the specific relationship of ISP to women offenders (Pearson, 1988; Petersilia & Turner, 1990b, 1990c, 1991; Turner & Petersilia, 1992).
Answer Location: p. 170
2. Describe the uses of case management in Medicaid managed-care programs.
A: Case management has also been cited as a key component of Medicaid managed-care programs for quality improvement in correctional care (Pollack, Khoshmood, & Altice, 1999) and as a strategy for service coordination during the transfer of offenders from correctional settings to communities (Conklin, 1994; Lewis, 2006; Vigilante et al., 1999). In a study of parolees, case-managed and control participants did not differ on time in treatment, days of drug use, criminal recidivism, or use of health and social services. However, for case-managed parolees, more contacts with the case manager predicted fewer days of drug use and fewer property crimes (Longshore, Turner, & Fain, 2005). In one study of a mental health treatment court (n = 235; 51% females, 49% males), participants receiving intensive case management had greater gains in decreasing jail time and improving psychosocial functioning compared to participants receiving treatment as usual (Cosden, Ellens, Schnell, & Yamini-Diouf, 2005). Through its focus on service linkage, case management may help meet special needs of women. Dowden and Andrews (1999) found human service intervention to be associated with reduced recidivism and suggested that such programs supported the therapeutic potential of correctional treatment interventions for women.
Answer Location: p. 171
3. How were women for the study selected?
A: Eligible women were residents of the city and county of San Francisco, 18 years of age or older, who had a substance abuse problem and were involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., incarcerated, pre-sentence, or on probation). Substance abuse involvement was determined in the course of the screening process. Drug involvement was indicated when pending charges included possession or sale of controlled substances or when the criminal history showed a series of likely drug-related charges (e.g., petty theft) punctuated over time by charges of sale and possession. Such charges were discussed with the participant during the screening process to further assess drug involvement. To be eligible for study, participants must have been willing to enter substance abuse treatment. If this was not part of the assessment and inclusion criteria, then willingness to enter treatment may have been unequally distributed across conditions, and PCM findings may have been confounded by a difference between groups in initial willingness to enter treatment.
Women were identified as potential study participants using four methods: daily arrest reports, district attorney motions to revoke probation, pretrial release, and referral from probation officers, public defenders, or district attorneys. In the city and county of San Francisco, daily arrest reports list per sons recently arrested who are in jail each morning. Most participants were identified using this strategy, and 96% of study participants were first screened while in county jail. Exclusion criteria were (a) current involvement in drug court, (b) court order to receive PCM services, or (c) referral by a probation officer directly to the PCM program. Current or past charges of involving violence were considered case by case. Women with a history of multiple violent events were excluded. Where violence occurred as a single event, some years in the past, or in the context of mutual combat, the woman may have been accepted into the study.
Answer Location: p. 173
1. What has research shown with respect to rates of juvenile violence?
A: From the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, American youth violence became a major public concern (Zimring, 1998). Aggregate juvenile violent crime arrest rates increased by more than 60% from 1988 to 1994 (Snyder, 1998), and the total number of juvenile arrests for murder rose by more than 100% during this same time period (Cook & Laub, 1998; Zimring, 1998). In addition to surges in violent youthful offending, violent victimization of adolescents also increased substantially. It not only appeared that juveniles were becoming more involved in violent acts, but they also were suffering at the hands of their peers. In this context, serious and violent delinquents started to be branded as “super-predators” (Dilulio, 1995), who were thought to be not only more dangerous than previous generations of youth but also younger when they started exhibiting their violent behavior.
Answer Location: p. 248
2. What has previous research shown with regard to the effects of transfer on juvenile recidivism?
A: Several researchers have examined the accountability of juvenile transfer in terms of deterrence theory. Some research has been done on the effect of juvenile transfer on both general deterrence (see, e.g., Jensen & Metsger, 1994; Risler, Sweatman, & Nakerud, 1998; Singer & McDowall, 1988) and specific deterrence (see, e.g., Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-Kaduce, & Winner, 1996; Fagan, 1995, 1996; Myers, 2001, 2003b; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996; Winner, Lanza-Kaduce, Bishop, & Frazier, 1997). This research generally shows that transfer has either no effect on recidivism or that transferred youths actually exhibit higher recidivism than nontransferred youths. Regardless of these findings, it is important that when discussing deterrence, researchers also should assess how consistent juvenile transfer is with the three elements of deterrence (Beccaria, 1764/1963). In other words, is there a higher likelihood of punishment certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment in adult court for these youths?
Early comparative research suggests that transferred offenders experience higher conviction rates than nontransferred offenders (Eigen, 1981a, 1981b; Rudman, Hartstone, Fagan, & Moore, 1986). However, these studies suffer from a lack of multivariate analyses, meaning other explanatory factors (e.g., offense seriousness and prior record) were not statistically controlled for in the analyses. More recent research using multivariate techniques generally do indicate that violent transferred offenders experience a higher conviction rate than similar youths retained by the juvenile court (Fagan, 1995; Myers, 2001, 2003a). Fagan’s (1995) research does, however, suggest that the likelihood of conviction may be offense based, with less of a difference in likelihood of conviction existing among nonviolent offenders. Myers (2001, 2003a) also found a higher probability of target conviction (i.e., conviction on the offense that triggered the initial transfer to adult court) among transferred offenders. This is an indication of a lower likelihood of reduced charges in adult criminal court. In other words, transferred youths appear less likely to benefit from plea bargaining and more likely to be convicted of the crime that initiated waiver to adult court.
Answer Location: p. 248
3. What has previous research indicated with respect to the severity of punishment and juvenile transfer and recidivism?
A: Early descriptive research found that between 64% and 67% of the transferred and convicted offenders were incarcerated (Bishop et al., 1989; Bishop & Frazier, 1991; Houghtalin & Mays, 1981; Thomas & Bilchik, 1985). Again, because comparison groups were not used, sound conclusions cannot be made. Other research that used comparison groups suggests that transferred youths experience a greater likelihood of incarceration than nontransferred youths (Eigen, 1981a, 1981b; Fagan, 1995; Podkopacz & Feld, 1995; Rudman et al., 1986) and were sentenced to longer incarceration time than nontransferred offenders (Eigen, 1981a, 1981b; Rudman et al., 1986). However, explanatory factors were not controlled for in those analyses, meaning the results could have been caused by other unmeasured factors (e.g., offense seriousness). Fagan’s (1995) research found very little difference in incarceration time between transferred and nontransferred offenders, and Fritsch, Caeti, and Hemmens (1996) found longer confinement time among youths in adult court but also indicated the need to examine actual time served (instead of the official sentence imposed by the court), as transferred youths served only a small portion of their sentences. More recent multivariate research does indicate that serious and violent transferred offenders are more likely to be incarcerated (see, e.g., Kupchik, 2006; Myers, 2001) and more likely to be sentenced to significantly longer incarceration times than similar retained offenders (Lemmon, Austin, Verrecchia, & Fetzer, 2005; Myers, 2001, 2003a). This suggests that transfer is effective in generating longer sentences (i.e., punishment severity) for these offenders, as compared to those in juvenile court.
Answer Location: p. 250
1. Describe the purpose of teen courts.
A: Teen courts, also known as peer, youth, or student courts, address low-level delinquency by involving juvenile offenders in courtroom roles other than that of delinquent. Teen offenders are processed and sentenced by their peers, who rely on a variety of sanctions, including community service, verbal and written apologies, restitution, and education (Butts & Buck, 2000). Some courts are preadjudicatory, determining if teen offenders are guilty of alleged offenses (e.g., Minor, Wells, Soderstrom, Bingham, & Williamson, 1999), but more than 90% are postadjudicatory and require admissions of guilt before accepting cases (National Youth Court Center [NYCC], 2006). Teen courts are included in states’ multitiered systems of juvenile sanctions as a way to show that first offenses are being taken more seriously, and at the same time more sensitively, because peers are involved in imposing sanctions (Rasmussen, 2004).
Answer Location: p. 200
2. Describe the proceedings of a juvenile court.
A: Early labeling theorist Frank Tannenbaum (1938) famously stated, “The less said about it the better” (p. 19), in processing delinquents, but in a teen court setting, much is said by a variety of actors. Formal juvenile hearings do not have juries, and even adult defendants are spared questions from jurors, yet both of these features are common in teen courts. Similarly, juveniles seldom retain defense counsel in formal hearings, yet defense is a staple of teen court proceedings. In addition to the extra formality and intrusiveness of teen courts, sanctions tend to be more severe than low-level offenders would receive in regular juvenile court (Butts, Buck, & Coggeshall, 2002).
This “dramatization of evil” (Tannenbaum, 1938, p. 18) by teen courts is justified because the courtroom actors, sometimes including the judge (e.g., Godwin, 1998), are not adults but youth peers. According to the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “The judgment of a juvenile offender’s peers may have a greater impact than the decisions of adult authority figures” (John J. Wilson, quoted in Butts & Buck, 2000, p. 1). Peer disapproval of delinquent acts is thought to counteract their approval by delinquent subcultures (A. K. Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958), especially as teen courtroom work group members are usually former delinquents. Constructive disapproval can be proactive and transcendent—consistent with theories of reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989), social learning (Bandura, 1997), and restorative justice (Bazemore, 2001)—when combined with efforts to help offenders through empathy and individualized dispositions (Dick, Pence, Jones, & Geertsen, 2004).
Answer Location: p. 201
3. Describe the history of juvenile courts in the United States.
A: Anecdotal evidence exists of teen courts operating in California during the 1930s (Hissong, 1991), but the first substantiated teen court regulated youth bicycle traffic in Ohio in the late 1940s (“Sentences Meted Out,” 1949). The first teen courts to handle more varied offenses emerged in Illinois, Texas, and New York in the 1970s. The Naperville, Illinois, Youth Jury began in 1972 and is the earliest program still in existence (NYCC, 2006); the Odessa Teen Court in Texas began in 1976 and is considered a national model for programs in the United States (Herman, 2002).
Teen courts grew exponentially in the 1990s and have continued to increase in this decade: from 50 programs in 1991 to 78 in 1994, 500 in 1998, and 800 in 2002 (Butts et al., 2002; Butts, Hoffman, & Buck, 1999), to more than 1,100 in 2006 (NYCC, 2006). Juvenile courts in the United States processed 1,633,300 cases in 2000, of which 693,000 were handled without a formal petition (Puzzanchera, Stahl, Finnegan, Tierney, & Snyder, 2004). Average caseload data from an overview by Butts et al. (1999) suggest that teen courts handled about 12% of the informal caseload in 1998, roughly 84,500 cases. Butts et al. (2002) estimated 100,000 teen court cases in 2002; projecting these trends forward suggests that teen courts might handle more than 150,000 cases in 2009.
Answer Location: p. 201